View more on these topics

Mark Dampier: FSA should impose ‘total cost of fund ownership’ figure

The present system of charging by fund firms is flawed and the regulator needs to sort it out.

I received a letter from a reader recently concerning fund charges and, with much publicity on the subject at the moment, it seems an opportune time to air my own views.

Fees and charges are important. Over time, they can make a huge difference to investment returns.

A debate currently rages on whether the annual fees deducted from unit trust or Oeic funds are being properly reported.

The figure we most often see is the annual management charge. This is the charge the fund company takes for running the fund. Yet it excludes various items such as legal costs. So the alternative, more comprehensive figure is the total expense ratio or TER, soon to be known as the ongoing charge. This includes the various other costs incurred by the fund so it is a better measure than the annual management charge.

Dealing costs, however, are still excluded. Some argue they should not be but they can change drastically over time, so perhaps it would make the figure more volatile.

However, a more important point in my view is how fund administration and registration costs are being taken. Increasingly, they are being expressed as a fixed percentage of the fund. It may sound a small point but percentages of growing funds add up to a lot of money quickly. These charges ought to be relatively static and should not really increase markedly as the fund grows. These percentages should be falling over time on funds that are growing assets.

Some fund companies are also seemingly reducing the AMC while maintaining the TER level, something that also does not look right to me. It implies that companies are picking and choosing what goes into the AMC and what doesn’t, so is it really worth looking at the AMC figure at all?

Some groups have suggested there should be a standard figure for the total cost of fund ownership. It sounds an eminently sensible idea, and, speaking from a consumer point of view, I ask why the FSA has not sorted this out already. It seems the current system is flawed and an opportunity has been missed with the recent introduction of the new key investor information document.

It is their job as financial services regulator to look at fund costs and how fund groups are charging. It seems reasonable that a system should be put in place where consumers can compare the price of a fund with one annual percentage figure that accurately reflects total cost. At present, fund companies appear to have too much discretion, which makes the job of analysing charges incredibly tricky for advisers and clients alike.

Mark Dampier is head research at Hargreaves Lansdown

Recommended

5

EIS investors face losses under deal to cut Rangers’ debt

Over half of the money owed to Ticketus by Glasgow Rangers would be wiped out if the Blue Knights Consortium takes over the club. A bid being prepared by the Blue Knights Consortium includes an agreement with Ticketus to wipe £17m off the debt it is owed by Rangers, according to the BBC. The Blue […]

1

ABI plea to ease drawdown rules

The Association of British Insurers is preparing to lobby the Government to ease the restrictions on capped drawdown as savers face large falls in annual income limits. Capped drawdown was introduced as part of the Government’s reforms to abolish compulsory annuitisation at age 75. Following the changes, which came into force in April last year, […]

4

Angela Knight to leave BBA

Angela Knight is to step down as chief executive of the British Bankers’ Association in the summer. Knight joined the BBA in 2007 and was previously chief executive of the Association of Private Client Managers and Stockbrokers. She will stay in the role until a replacement is found. She says: “I have been at the British […]

10

Tory MP presses for FSA section 166 fair deal

Conservative MP Mark Field has tabled an amendment to the Financial Services Bill that would force the FSA to pay for section 166 reports and only levy firms if the findings lead to enforcement action. Currently, the regulator can order firms to commission a third party to carry out s166 reports, which can cost hundreds […]

Health - thumbnail

Absence management systems gone AWOL from UK’s SMEs, reports Jelf

A quarter (23 per cent)* of the UK’s small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) do not have an absence management system in place, according to new research from Jelf Employee Benefits. Despite 69 per cent* of organisations having a system in place, three-quarters (75 per cent) report that it is not providing them with sufficiently empowering absence or health data to inform an effective wellbeing programme.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. and they should also sort out the execution only payments issue. nothing against HL, but it is a shocker that people don’t understand that there are financial considerations afoot

  2. Invested interests..

  3. What we need is a version of the banking APR costing. Say an Annual Investment Charging Rate or Annual Rate Security Expense. I can see the FSA being attracted to thois idea.

  4. David Ferguson 2nd April 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Far more appropriate is a system which allows clients to see the full cost of each of the three key elements in the overall costs, namely advice, asset management and administration.

    Only then can the client understand the total cost and the client / adviser have the chance to judge whether there is bias in the asset choice.

    Same rules should apply to advised and non-advised business. It’s not complicated.

  5. Of course we should – but please explain how we factor in the time held. And then, of course, we will tell the investors when internal costs change. Then we will factor in the costs of telling the investor about the costs and the changes to those costs.
    Well, it will give people things to do when they get fed up advising clients because their office collapsed under the weight of all this paperwork.

  6. Lets apply the same to a Stabucks filter coffee. We can then look forward to its cost increasing fourfold when the the FSA, (Financial Starbucks Regulator) gets its bureaucratic hands on it. For Gods sake don’t give these unelected unaccountable jobsworth even more to regulate out of existence!

Leave a comment